kockamaniahu:

SFU II  “Tomahawk” (by _TrapleS_)

kockamaniahu:

SFU II “Tomahawk” (by _TrapleS_)

Caitlin Stasey being the hero we all deserve.

(via lipstick-feminists)

asker

Anonymous asked: why do black people use you in the wrong context? such is "you ugly" instead of "you're ugly" I know u guys can differentiate, it's a nuisance

miniprof:

rsbenedict:

prettyboyshyflizzy:

you a bitch

It’s called copula deletion, or zero copula. Many languages and dialects, including Ancient Greek and Russian, delete the copula (the verb to be) when the context is obvious.

So an utterance like “you a bitch” in AAVE is not an example of a misused you, but an example of a sentence that deletes the copular verb (are), which is a perfectly valid thing to do in that dialect, just as deleting an /r/ after a vowel is a perfectly valid thing to do in an upper-class British dialect.

What’s more, it’s been shown that copula deletion occurs in AAVE exactly in those contexts where copula contraction occurs in so-called “Standard American English.” That is, the basic sentence “You are great” can become “You’re great” in SAE and “You great” in AAVE, but “I know who you are” cannot become “I know who you’re” in SAE, and according to reports, neither can you get “I know who you” in AAVE.

In other words, AAVE is a set of grammatical rules just as complex and systematic as SAE, and the widespread belief that it is not is nothing more than yet another manifestation of deeply internalized racism.

Someone remind me to talk about the habitual tense in AAVE some time.

Fake, phone-attacking cell-towers are all across America

mostlysignssomeportents:

The towers attack the baseband radio in your phone and use it to hack the OS; they’re only visible if you’re using one of the customized, paranoid-Android, post-Snowden secure phones, and they’re all around US military bases.

Read more…

He who fights with monsters should be careful he doesn’t become a monster himself. Unless that makes him more effective at fighting monsters. Like he becomes a badass werewolf who knows how to use a sword and has magic armor. That’d be so rad.

Nietzsche (via doc-sarge)

(Hey, rorzathoth)

(via katethulhu)

(via derpycats)

socimages:

Can lawmakers only pass laws that corporations allow?
By Jay Livingston, PhD
We refer to Senators and Congressional representatives as “lawmakers.” We democratically elect these people so that they can write and enact laws. But every so often the curtain parts, and we get a glimpse of who’s writing the laws, though these are usually laws that don’t make headlines. There was that time during the Bush years when corporate lobbyists were sitting right next to elected representatives – mostly Republican – at a committee hearing, telling them what to say.  The GOP defenders got all huffy at those who had pointed out who was really running the legislation show.
Last week’s New York Times has an article (here) about efforts to close loopholes in corporate tax laws.  Three-quarters of the way through the story, we get this paragraph (emphasis added):

Elaine C. Kamarck, the co-chairwoman of a bipartisan coalition of businesses and organizations that support a tax overhaul, says the only way a tax bill will pass is to use any savings derived from closing corporate loopholes solely to lower the overall corporate tax rate. The companies that have joined the coalition, which include Boeing, AT&T, Verizon, Walmart and Walt Disney, have agreed to put every loophole on the table, she said, because they believe “a low enough basic tax rate is worth giving up exemptions.”

The message is clear: our elected representatives can change the law only if a handful of corporations agree. Ms. Kamarck tells us that these corporations have selflessly allowed their tax dodges to be put “on the table.” Presumably, had they not been so magnanimous,  these corporations would not allow Congress to change the law.  She also implies that if the tradeoff – fewer exemptions but lower rates – don’t benefit the corporations, they’ll take their loopholes off the table and stop our elected representatives from changing the law.
Nice. I think that educators are so valuable to society that their income should not be taxed. But that table Ms. Kamarck mentions – the one where you tell Congress which tax rules you’ll accept – I can’t get anywhere near it.  So I pay my taxes. In fact, last year, I paid more in taxes than did Verizon and Boeing combined.  They, and several other huge corporations, paid zero.
I am, of course, naive to think that it was really Congress that wrote the laws that allow these corporations to pay nothing, and not the corporations themselves. How else?
Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.

socimages:

Can lawmakers only pass laws that corporations allow?

By Jay Livingston, PhD

We refer to Senators and Congressional representatives as “lawmakers.” We democratically elect these people so that they can write and enact laws. But every so often the curtain parts, and we get a glimpse of who’s writing the laws, though these are usually laws that don’t make headlines. There was that time during the Bush years when corporate lobbyists were sitting right next to elected representatives – mostly Republican – at a committee hearing, telling them what to say.  The GOP defenders got all huffy at those who had pointed out who was really running the legislation show.

Last week’s New York Times has an article (here) about efforts to close loopholes in corporate tax laws.  Three-quarters of the way through the story, we get this paragraph (emphasis added):

Elaine C. Kamarck, the co-chairwoman of a bipartisan coalition of businesses and organizations that support a tax overhaul, says the only way a tax bill will pass is to use any savings derived from closing corporate loopholes solely to lower the overall corporate tax rate. The companies that have joined the coalition, which include Boeing, AT&T, Verizon, Walmart and Walt Disney, have agreed to put every loophole on the table, she said, because they believe “a low enough basic tax rate is worth giving up exemptions.”

The message is clear: our elected representatives can change the law only if a handful of corporations agree. Ms. Kamarck tells us that these corporations have selflessly allowed their tax dodges to be put “on the table.” Presumably, had they not been so magnanimous,  these corporations would not allow Congress to change the law.  She also implies that if the tradeoff – fewer exemptions but lower rates – don’t benefit the corporations, they’ll take their loopholes off the table and stop our elected representatives from changing the law.

Nice. I think that educators are so valuable to society that their income should not be taxed. But that table Ms. Kamarck mentions – the one where you tell Congress which tax rules you’ll accept – I can’t get anywhere near it.  So I pay my taxes. In fact, last year, I paid more in taxes than did Verizon and Boeing combined.  They, and several other huge corporations, paid zero.

I am, of course, naive to think that it was really Congress that wrote the laws that allow these corporations to pay nothing, and not the corporations themselves. How else?

Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.

kockamaniahu:

Steampunk AT-AT: The All Terrain Aristocratic Traveler (by 'rolli)

kockamaniahu:

Steampunk AT-AT: The All Terrain Aristocratic Traveler (by 'rolli)

elloellenoh:

pleatedjeans:

@drewtoothpaste


This was me when I graduated from law school.

As a Millennial, you can only advance in careers that require esoteric knowledge. Trufax.

elloellenoh:

pleatedjeans:

@drewtoothpaste

This was me when I graduated from law school.

As a Millennial, you can only advance in careers that require esoteric knowledge. Trufax.

(via katethulhu)

ammaasante:

Here is what is going on in Pakistan right now:

(via katethulhu)

tree-stump-palace:

whentherestrouble:

smoochums:

women grow hair on their boobs and their butts and their legs and their arms and their stomachs and their face and really anywhere their genetics decides to have hair and it is perfectly normal what isnt normal is men who have never touched a razor trying to shame women for not looking like a hairless baby

important

shout this loud.

(via katethulhu)

Entitled

  • Me: This older generation pisses me off so much
  • Therapist: Why?
  • Me: Because when I was growing up, we were forcefed the idea that if we didn't want to be 'flipping burgers at McDonalds,' then we'd better go to college.
  • Therapist: And?
  • Me: And now we've all gone to college, have degrees, can't get a damn job, and the same people that told us to go to college call us entitled assholes because we refuse to flip burgers
  • Therapist: Touche

katethulhu:

thefirstmissamerica:

mostly-perfect:

So one time my dad bought a skeleton for Halloween, and one day he decided to place it in the kitchen to scare me and it went too far…

You have the best dad

Carly, if you don’t want your awesome dad anymore, I’ll take him.